Author Topic: Playmania (Read 36603 times)

JasonA1 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 21, 2006, 04:41:30 AM »

I thought I was wrong when I saw them waiting longer-than-usual to take their first caller, but evidently the show isn't grabbing as many players as before. Although watching them vamp and have 0 takers would be perversely entertaining. Hmmm...

-Jason

uncamark · « **Reply #46 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:21:29 PM »

[quote name=\'SteveRep\' post=\'124646\' date=\'Jul 21 2006, 12:38 AM\']
This show is dead. They're 35 minutes into the show and they're playing their third game and the amount of time with no one lined up to play is extensive.

Listening to Mel and Shandi beg for players to try and win a measly $50 isn't entertaining.
[/quote]

It seems to me that a lot of this is done on purpose to string things along--the calls are there, the producers are taking their sweet time giving them to Mel so they can drive up the revenue.

Yesterday, I was looking at stuff on the web site of Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulatory agency, and there were complaints about what ukgameshows.com's Iain Weaver calls the "call-and-lose" channels. It seems to me that Ofcom has had to issue a statement regarding the channels, but I'm having trouble finding it today.

davemackey · « **Reply #47 on:** July 23, 2006, 09:34:27 AM »

Last night's (Saturday) show was a horror show. It was like pulling teeth to get through four games. A movie quote (which wasn't even the right quote - it was misquoted!), the top 5 comic strips, a word with missing letters, and the top five movies based on real people.

And the most unpleasant aspect of all? Two contestants named Zach. Oh, the pain.

The most bogus aspect of the phone call scam around this show is that you could conceivably call in 10 times and NEVER get into the player pool. Sucker! You just lost $10 and wasted part of your evening. And its we, the losers, who make the winners' prizes possible.

Next opportunity, I'm moving to Vermont.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #48 on:** July 23, 2006, 11:33:03 AM »

Quote

The most bogus aspect of the phone call scam around this show is that you could conceivably call in 10 times and NEVER get into the player pool.

Conceivably? Try regularly. I've watched & played along with the show about ten times, and never once got the call back. I've tried using one entry per game as well as piling entries on to only a few games (which is never expressedly allowed or disallowed on air or in game documentation. Hurrumph.). Of course, I'm using the free entry which they say carries the same weight as a text, but I'm not so sure...

-Jason

goongas · « **Reply #49 on:** July 23, 2006, 11:44:11 AM »

I got called back three times using the free entries.

Steve McClellan · « **Reply #50 on:** July 23, 2006, 12:09:56 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Jul 23 2006, 08:33 AM\']I've tried using one entry per game as well as piling entries on to only a few games (which is never expressedly allowed or disallowed on air or in game documentation. Hurrumph.).[/quote]
The on-air personalities have mentioned a couple of times that it is indeed permissible.

Quote

Of course, I'm using the free entry which they say carries the same weight as a text, but I'm not so sure...

Well, if it doesn't, they're risking a heck of a lot of legal trouble.

clemon79 · « **Reply #51 on:** July 23, 2006, 01:48:10 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'124824\' date=\'Jul 23 2006, 09:09 AM\']
Well, if it doesn't, they're risking a heck of a lot of legal trouble.
[/quote]
...except a potential plaintiff would have to be able to prove it.

wyoperson888 · « **Reply #52 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:43:38 AM »

[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'123167\' date=\'Jul 3 2006, 08:06 AM\']
Being up the other night with a sick child, I surfed by "Playmania". Exactly why is this on the air? Are they training new equipment operators late at night when they think nobody's watching? Simply awful.

And on the Western feed, it's aired tape-delayed. So the only possible motivation for watching it, the lame call-in-and-play part of it, isn't even there.

I'm sure this is costing them much more to produce than running the usual B&W shows at that hour. I'm really stumped by this one.
[/quote]
I agree 100% that it is the crappiest show from GSN yet. And people wonder why GSN originals (except for Lingo-one of my favorite shows) don't last long! Lingo is going into its fourth season, which is good. It went past the airing time of Michael Reagan's Lingo in the 1980's. But you can only really ask if the next original's are just as good and will be high in the ratings!

uncamark · « **Reply #53 on:** July 27, 2006, 04:05:51 PM »

[quote name=\'wyoperson888\' post=\'125337\' date=\'Jul 27 2006, 09:43 AM\']
I agree 100% that it is the crappiest show from GSN yet. And people wonder why GSN originals (except for Lingo-one of my favorite shows) don't last long! Lingo is going into its fourth season, which is good. It went past the airing time of Michael Reagan's Lingo in the 1980's. But you can only really ask if the next original's are just as good and will be high in the ratings!
[/quote]

Ratings don't count here--if they can get a steady stream of revenue from participants, they don't have to worry about ratings. Bud Paxson boasted during his days at Home Shopping Network that HSN could have the worst ratings in the world and still turn a profit. That's the lure of something like "PlayMania"--put something on in low-viewing time slots that generates as much as revenue as infomercials, can generate more revenue in that time slot than traditional advertising could and is closer to the GSN remit than infomercials. It's a close call, but I'd almost rather see a "PlayMania" on the schedule than infomercials.

clemon79 · « **Reply #54 on:** July 27, 2006, 04:11:19 PM »

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'125371\' date=\'Jul 27 2006, 01:05 PM\']
Ratings don't count here--if they can get a steady stream of revenue from participants, they don't have to worry about ratings.
[/quote]
Except, you'll note from their desperate vamping for ten minutes as the player queue sits empty, they don't have a steady stream of revenue.

wyoperson888 · « **Reply #55 on:** July 27, 2006, 04:22:20 PM »

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'125371\' date=\'Jul 27 2006, 02:05 PM\']
[quote name=\'wyoperson888\' post=\'125337\' date=\'Jul 27 2006, 09:43 AM\']
I agree 100% that it is the crappiest show from GSN yet. And people wonder why GSN originals (except for Lingo-one of my favorite shows) don't last long! Lingo is going into its fourth season, which is good. It went past the airing time of Michael Reagan's Lingo in the 1980's. But you can only really ask if the next original's are just as good and will be high in the ratings!
[/quote]

Ratings don't count here--if they can get a steady stream of revenue from participants, they don't have to worry about ratings. Bud Paxson boasted during his days at Home Shopping Network that HSN could have the worst ratings in the world and still turn a profit. That's the lure of something like "PlayMania"--put something on in low-viewing time slots that generates as much as revenue as infomercials, can generate more revenue in that time slot than traditional advertising could and is closer to the GSN remit than infomercials. It's a close call, but I'd almost rather see a "PlayMania" on the schedule than infomercials.
[/quote]
True, but I have satellite and when it is on at 11:00 p.m., the only people able to watch it are in the west coast or mountain time area. People are asleep by 11:00 (usually). By the time it airs in New York, it is already 1:00 in the morning!

uncamark · « **Reply #56 on:** July 27, 2006, 04:26:19 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'125375\' date=\'Jul 27 2006, 03:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'125371\' date=\'Jul 27 2006, 01:05 PM\']
Ratings don't count here--if they can get a steady stream of revenue from participants, they don't have to worry about ratings.
[/quote]
Except, you'll note from their desperate vamping for ten minutes as the player queue sits empty, they don't have a steady stream of revenue.
[/quote]

I think the desperate vamping is more jerking around with the audience to get more money out of them than any actual lack of participants--which could get them in trouble sooner or later, if proof comes out.

beatlefreak84 · « **Reply #57 on:** July 27, 2006, 04:30:59 PM »

Quote

I think the desperate vamping is more jerking around with the audience to get more money out of them than any actual lack of participants--which could get them in trouble sooner or later, if proof comes out.

I thought the same thing myself. I think it really starts to make sense when you see the "Player's Lounge" always has only two names (or less) in it, despite the fact that there are three (or even five) possible slots. I highly doubt it's because they're lacking players; I think it's because they want to give the illusion that they still need another player, so people will continue texting in.

I'm probably not up on legal stuff, but I don't quite understand why the whole "vamp for 10 minutes" thing and give the illusion that players are still needed is necessarily illegal; I would think, as long as they do pick their participants randomly, and there's still the free entry method, it becomes more of a "frowned upon" practice as opposed to necessarily illegal.

Could somebody with some knowledge on this kindly enlighten me?

Anthony

JasonA1 · « **Reply #58 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:24:29 AM »

I watched the show a number of times in the earliest weeks and just came back to it recently. While I haven't personally caught an uncomfortable length of vamping, several of my friends have seen them in the more recent shows, which to me would seem to indicate the lack of participation. When the show was new, games were just zipping along.

While I agree with Mark that it's ideal to let the viewers hang and pile on entries, I don't think it's always the case. For example, the times where they make no mistake this is what they're doing. For instance, when Mel offers a "clue" to the answer(s) they want, they'll take a noticeable pause, despite what was earlier a steady stream of callers. Or when they offer a bonus to the next caller - such as "double money for the next caller" or "two guesses for the next two callers" - they will always let the offer stay up for a while. This is obviously so Joe Sixpack thinks he can swoop in and take whatever money there is on offer. They've recently taken to having commercials midgame, even after giving away a hint. As if the pause wasn't enough of a hint, after said pause is over, the "Lounge" doesn't include its normal verifying prompt, instead jumping to the names immediately.

Quick aside to those who have been on - what exactly happens when you get the call and summarily go on the show? I've been on radio call in shows before, so I think it's similar, but I'm interested to hear it from PlayMania contestants specifically.

-Jason

goongas · « **Reply #59 on:** July 28, 2006, 11:17:05 PM »

Quote

Quick aside to those who have been on - what exactly happens when you get the call and summarily go on the show?

A producer calls you, they tell you to stay on the line and lower the volume on your tv (they give you the audio through the phone). If the on-air host gets to you, you immediately talk to the on-air host. If someone else wins the game, they hang up on you without another word if you are waiting the players lounge (see your name on the TV). One time I was not initially in the players lounge and someone had won the game, so they gave me a chance to play the next game. They have called me three times. One time I hit the wrong button on my cell phone by accident and hung up on them, and they did not call me back.